Archives For CCM

Do 1 Timothy 4:4-5 and Romans 14:14 Refute What Shai Linne Says They Do?

December 11, 2013

In his first rebuttal to Scott Aniol on the subject of “Christian rap,” Shai Linne asserts, “Scripture clearly refutes” the notion “that music, apart from lyrics, can be sinful in and of itself.” More fully, he writes:

You [Scott] said:

“Yes, I believe that music, apart from lyrics, can be sinful in and of itself.”

I wholeheartedly disagree and I believe Scripture clearly refutes that notion. A few relevant texts:

“For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.” (1 Timothy 4:4-5 )

“I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself…” (Romans 14:14)

Those are amazing statements coming from the Apostle Paul, a Jewish man who was familiar with the many old covenant dietary restrictions. The key phrase in Romans 14:14? “in itself”. Paul is saying that food doesn’t have inherent moral value. The heart of the one eating it determines how God views the act, not the food itself.

You yourself said, “God created the ‘stuff’ of music (sound, pitch, rhythm, timbre, etc.)”. Agreed. Music is simply the result of human beings arranging that “stuff” that God created. Can it be arranged with evil intent? Sure. And the person who does that will have to give an account for it. But no matter how evil a musician’s intentions, he doesn’t have the power to transform something that God created and called good into something inherently sinful. [1]

Is what Shai Linne asserts here a valid handling of these passages? Various considerations from Scripture combine to answer this question.

Does Paul Teach That Food Does Not Have Inherent Moral Value?

Concerning Romans 14:14, Shai asserts, “Paul is saying that food doesn’t have inherent moral value.” If that were what Paul is saying in Romans 14:14, then Paul would be contradicting himself because he explicitly says in the other passage that Shai quotes that everything that God has created is good: “For every creature of God is good” (1 Tim. 4:4).

Contrary to what Shai asserts, therefore, Paul teaches that food does have inherent moral value because what God has created as food for man is good. Neither 1 Timothy 4:4-5 nor Romans 14:14 teaches that food does not have inherent moral value.

Do 1 Timothy 4:4-5 and Romans 14:14 Support Shai’s Understanding of Music?

About music, Shai says, “Music is simply the result of human beings arranging that ‘stuff’ that God created. Can it be arranged with evil intent? Sure. And the person who does that will have to give an account for it.” With these statements, he acknowledges that people can arrange the ‘stuff’ of music with an evil intent and that they will have to answer to God for doing so.

He then, however, asserts, “But no matter how evil a musician’s intentions, he doesn’t have the power to transform something that God created and called good into something inherently sinful.” When he says this, Shai clearly is asserting that man cannot do something, but what exactly does he mean by what he says here?

If what he means by this statement were that the various elements (the musical “stuff”) that God created (such as individual musical tones) cannot themselves be transformed into something inherently sinful, that would be one thing. Because, however, he means that the resulting product of the human arrangement also cannot be inherently sinful, he is saying something far beyond what either of these passages is saying because neither passage directly addresses what happens when man alters or combines good things that God has made.

Can Man Create Something That Is Inherently Sinful from Something Good That God Created?

Because neither 1 Timothy 4:4-5 or Romans 14:14 actually does what Shai asserts, we have to look elsewhere in Scripture to see if it teaches anywhere one way or the other whether man can take something good that God has created and make something that is in and of itself evil. Deuteronomy 9 provides revelation that addresses this matter explicitly and decisively.

In Deuteronomy 9:1-7, Moses reminds the Israelites of their previous wickedness in the wilderness. He then rehearses their exceeding wickedness in the Golden Calf incident (Deut. 9:8-21).

Moses notes multiple times in this passage that they sinned by making a molten image (Deut. 9:12, 16, 21): They quickly “turned aside out of the way” that God had commanded and “made them a molten image” (Deut. 9:12). They “sinned against the Lord [their] God” and “made . . . a molded calf” (Deut. 9:16; cf. Exod. 32:31).

When he speaks for the third time in the passage about the calf that they made, he says,

Deu 9:21 And I took your sin, the calf which ye had made, and burnt it with fire, and stamped it, and ground it very small, even until it was as small as dust: and I cast the dust thereof into the brook that descended out of the mount.

The exact wording of this third reference to their making the calf is striking: “your sin, the calf which ye had made.” Saying this, Moses puts “the calf which ye had made” in apposition to “your sin.”

Moses thus referred to the calf that they made as their “sin”! He thus said that the calf was itself sinful.[2]

It was not just their evil intent for the calf or their evil use of it that was sinful—the calf itself was a sinful object! These people took gold, an inherently good and highly valuable substance that God created (cf. Gen. 2:12), and made an object out of it that was in and of itself sinful.

Although the gold itself did not become inherently sinful, the golden calf was a manmade fashioning of that gold into something that was inherently sinful! Based on what Scripture says about what man did with gold on this occasion, we understand that this passage refutes the basic principle underlying what Shai asserts is true about the musical “stuff” that God created: “But no matter how evil a musician’s intentions, he doesn’t have the power to transform something that God created and called good into something inherently sinful.”

Discussion

As a key basis for his support of “Christian rap,” Shai Linne asserts that humans cannot take something inherently good that God has created and make something out of it that is in and of itself sinful. Deuteronomy 9:21 refutes this assertion by showing that man did take something inherently good that God created and make it into something that was inherently sinful.

It is important to note that the gold that they made the calf from was from their earrings (Exod. 32:2-3), and we have no indication that their possessing and using gold that had been fashioned into rings to be worn in their ears was sinful. When they took the gold of those earrings, combined it, and molded it into the calf, however, the resulting object that they made for an evil purpose was wicked.

On the one hand, man’s use of his creative powers to make something out of the gold (the earrings) was not sinful. On the other hand, when they through “art and man’s device” (Acts 17:29) made the golden calf, they sinned by making an object that was in and of itself sinful (Deut. 9:21).

Moreover, the golden calf could not be “redeemed.” In spite of the fact that the gold that constituted it was a precious good metal that God had made as good, the golden calf that had been made for and used for a wicked purpose had to be obliterated (Deut. 9:21).

Conclusion

Neither 1 Timothy 4:4-5 nor Romans 14:14 supports the view that man cannot take musical elements and arrange them to make instrumental music that is inherently sinful. Scripture does not “clearly refute” the view “that music, apart from lyrics, can be sinful in and of itself.”

In fact, Deuteronomy 9:21 shows that Scripture provides a clear basis for saying that human beings can take good things that God has made and create something out of them that is inherently sinful.[3] Applying this principle to what many biblical passages reveal about music provides believers with ample justification to say that instrumental music made for and used for wicked purposes is inherently wicked music.


[1] See the full rebuttal by Shai Linne here.

[2] Multiple translations confirm this understanding: “I took your sinful thing, the calf which you had made” (NAU); “As for your sinful thing that you had made, the calf” (NET); “Also I took that sinful thing of yours, the calf you had made” (NIV); “Then I took the sinful thing, the calf that you had made” (ESV); I took the sinful calf you had made” (CSB).

[3] For another argument that establishes the same point see this post.

 

 

 

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Theology
 permalink

Daniel 3 and the Debate about the Inherent Morality of Instrumental Music

December 7, 2013

Daniel 3 records that religion, international politics, and instrumental music converged in a prominent context of idolatrous worship in ancient Babylon. Was the instrumental music on that occasion inherently neutral or even moral?

Instrumental Music Used by Nebuchadnezzar for Idolatrous Worship

King Nebuchadnezzar was the head of the greatest Gentile Empire in human history (Dan. 2:36-38). He served many gods (Dan. 3:12, 14, 18) and decided to erect a colossal golden image (Dan. 3:1) for the purpose of idolatrous worship. He gathered all the leading officials of his kingdom to fall down and worship it (Dan. 3:2-6).

He decreed that all the people assembled were to do so (Dan. 3:4-5), accompanied by music produced by a noteworthy group of instrumentalists:

Dan 3:5 That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up.

A four-fold repetition of the list of instruments used on this occasion greatly stresses this aspect of the event (Dan. 3:5, 7, 10, 15).

When the musicians played at the appointed time, everyone assembled worshiped the image (Dan. 3:7), but three Jewish leaders did not (Dan. 3:12).

What Can We Know about The Musicians Who Played On This Occasion?

Because this was an international event of great importance, we can be certain that Nebuchadnezzar would have employed only the finest musicians available to him. Because he was the king, he had the resources and authority to secure and gather the best musicians who would know what kind of music would best suit the occasion.

These highly skilled musicians themselves (or some official over them, possibly even King Nebuchadnezzar) undoubtedly chose a style or styles of music that they knew would be best for the idolatrous worship of the image. They surely rehearsed the music properly so that their playing that music for this event would be fully pleasing to the king.

These musicians knew how to play several instruments proficiently, including both wind instruments and stringed instruments.[1] Their willingness to play these instruments for this occasion shows that any of them who may have been Israelites who were brought to Babylon in the captivity (cf. Dan. 1:3-5) were no longer faithful worshipers of only the Lord.

In all likelihood, the vast majority or perhaps even all of these musicians were idolaters of long standing prior to this occasion. It only makes sense that whoever chose the musicians for this event would have chosen as much as possible people who were well known for their devotion to the gods that Nebuchadnezzar worshiped.

Of the musicians who played for this idolatrous worship, those who had been idolaters prior to this occasion would undoubtedly have partaken of meat sacrificed to idols on those previous occasions of their idolatrous worship (cf. Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37; Acts 14:13, 18; 17:16, 23, 25; 1 Cor. 10:20). Doing so, they would have had direct contact with demons at those times (1 Cor. 10:20-21).

All of the musicians who had been idolaters prior to this event, therefore, were people who had previously been demonically influenced—they thus would not have been just ordinary sinners who had not had any prior fellowship with demons. Consistent with the nature of the occasion, demonic activity unquestionably played a major role in what actually took place, including the demonic energizing of these musicians (cf. Eph. 2:2-3; 1 John 5:19).

Was the Instrumental Music on This Occasion Neutral or Even Moral?

Scripture does not provide any evidence for holding that the musical instruments that these musicians played were inherently evil. As seen above, however, the musicians who played these instruments were evil people; if for no other reason, they were evil for their agreeing to participate in such idolatrous worship.

When these musicians played for this idolatrous worship “service,” they were knowingly sinning against the true and living God (Rom. 1:18-22). Through their music that contributed to that worship, they robbed Him of the glory that only He is due (Rom. 1:23; cf. Ps. 106:19-20).

Was the demonically influenced music played by the instrumentalists on this occasion still neutral or even moral because God created music? Did “common grace” somehow safeguard that instrumental music so that neither the style or styles of music used nor the music that was played was sinful?

Although God created the basic elements of music, Scripture does not teach that God has created all musical styles or all the music produced by humans using those styles. It is untenable, therefore, to hold that the demonically influenced instrumental music played by evil people on this idolatrous occasion was still neutral or even moral because God created the style or styles that they used—God did not create their styles or their music.

Conclusion

Strong Scriptural emphasis on instrumental music used by these evil people for this exceedingly evil purpose on an evil occasion of international significance demands holding that the music itself was evil unless proven otherwise by compelling biblical data.[2] Brethren who yet wish to hold that the instrumental music on this occasion was inherently neutral or even moral have the burden of proof of showing from a careful handling of Scripture why such was the case.

 

[1] Establishing further the precise identity of each of the instruments listed is not necessary for the purposes of this article.

[2] For much additional biblical teaching that supports this conclusion, see the resources here.

 

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

Can Music (without Lyrics) or a Photograph Ever Be Inherently Sinful?

December 6, 2013

Because I have been closely following recent online developments concerning “Christian” rap music, I have been thinking a lot recently about the claim that music without words cannot be inherently sinful. An analogy from photography helps to show how this claim is false.

How Photographs Themselves Can Be Inherently Sinful

Based on what I have read and heard in recent years, it seems that many Christians in our day apparently believe that no arrangement of things that are in and of themselves inherently good can be inherently sinful. Applying this belief to photography, many would probably argue that no photograph could in and of itself be sinful.

Based on the clear teaching and implications from many biblical passages (Gen. 3:21; 9:21-27; 2 Sam. 11:2-4; Hab. 2:15; Matt. 5:28; 18:6), however, any nude photograph of a very precocious but prepubescent girl in a sexually provocative pose is inherently sinful. The materials from which the sinful image of the girl is created are not inherently sinful, but the sinful image created when such a photograph is taken renders the end product inherently sinful.

According to Scripture, God has not authorized anyone to see such an image (cf. the clear implications of passages such as Hab. 2:15)—neither a parent, nor a doctor, nor any other human being has any right to create, see, or possess any such image. In fact, not even the girl herself has the right to pose for or in some other way create such an image.

It does not matter whatever good intent someone may claim for creating such an image—making such an image is sinful. The “style” of photography that creates such pornographic photos is inherently sinful and the photos themselves are also inherently sinful.

Although unbelievers may reject this position, Christians who believe the Bible are bound by Scripture to hold that such pornographic images are inherently sinful. No claim of Christian “liberty” can legitimately justify rejecting such a view simply because Scripture does not explicitly talk about pornographic pictures being wrong.

How Music without Lyrics Can Also Be Inherently Sinful

Just as it is false to say that no photograph can ever be inherently sinful, it is also false to say that music without lyrics cannot be inherently sinful because its constituent elements (such as musical tones) were created by God as good entities. If those tones are intentionally arranged in a way to create music for wicked purposes, although the tones themselves remain good, that combination is inherently sinful.

Scripture shows that this view is correct by recording several instances of people producing music that was wicked (Exod. 32:17-18 [see the articles in point 11 here]; Ezek. 33:32 [see this treatment]; Amos 6:5 [see this explanation]), including a key passage about instrumental music used for idolatrous worship (Dan. 3:7 [see this treatment]). Furthermore, Scripture is not silent about musical styles that are unacceptable to God, and it also supports in other ways that it is right to hold the view that music without lyrics can be inherently sinful.

Conclusion

It is understandable that unbelievers would hold the view that neither music without lyrics nor a photograph can be inherently sinful. Based, however, on a thorough treatment of what Scripture reveals both explicitly and implicitly, believers should reject this false view.

For more help with many important issues concerning music that is acceptable to God for Christian worship, please see all the resources here.

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Theology
 permalink

On “Cultural Racism” and Christian Opposition to “Holy Hip-Hop”

December 2, 2013

As an American of Indian origin, I have personally experienced on various occasions suffering caused by genuine racism. As a dedicated Christian who has had to learn to submit to God’s ordaining of those painful experiences for my life, I have learned about my own sinfulness in various respects through these difficulties.

Given my background and life experiences, I was appalled to read recently that some Christians are asserting that “cultural racism” is a root cause of opposition by many believers to “holy hip-hop.” Having viewed the NCFIC video,[1] read several blog posts concerning it,[2] and worked through a vast number of comments on these posts, I feel compelled to respond biblically in a specific respect to this charge of “cultural racism.”

Scriptural Data concerning God’s Judgment on All Aspects of Many Cultures

The validity of the assertion that “cultural racism” is a leading cause of opposition to “holy hip-hop” hinges upon a belief that all cultures have certain neutral or even positive elements worth either preserving or “redeeming,” including especially their musical art forms. Does Scripture support such a belief?

A careful examination of Scripture reveals that on multiple occasions God decisively and comprehensively made known his appraisal of all aspects of many cultures. Three passages show this divine appraisal unmistakably.

Genesis 6-9

At the time of Noah, God infallibly assessed that all humanity had so profoundly debased itself that God was going to annihilate all humans from the earth (Gen. 6:5-7). Out of all humanity living on the earth at this time, only Noah and seven members of his family found grace from God to escape this universal destruction (Gen. 6:8-9; 18).

In light of earlier Scriptural references, we know that there were a vast number of other peoples living at this time (Gen. 4:16-24; 6:1-4) from whom there were no survivors after the Flood. Not only did all those people perish, but also everything about their cultures, societies, lifestyles, etc. was obliterated.

We have no basis for holding that Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives had ever had comprehensive exposure of any kind to all of these other cultures that were annihilated. We further know that at least some of these people were instrumentalists whose music had considerable time to degenerate (Gen. 4:21 cf. 6:5; see my post Are All Musical Styles Inherently Moral? for a full explanation of this important point).

Through the Flood, God thus rendered comprehensive judgment on all aspects of many cultures, including their musical art forms. Genesis 6-9 therefore refutes the notion that all cultures have had musical art forms that were worth preserving or “redeeming.”

Genesis 18-19

In the time of Abraham and Lot, the Lord noted that “the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah [was] great” and that “their sin [was] very grievous” (Gen. 18:20). Because of the profound wickedness of these people, God annihilated them:

Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

God spared only Lot, his wife,[3] and their two daughters from this judgment (Gen. 19:16).[4] We have no basis in Scripture, however, for holding that Lot and his two daughters somehow preserved all the musical art forms of Sodom and Gomorrah from destruction because those art forms were of some supposedly inherent worth.

God’s total obliteration of everything about Sodom and Gomorrah does not support holding that they had musical aspects of their cultures that were worth preserving or “redeeming.” Both Genesis 6-9 and Genesis 18-19 show that God has assessed many cultures in human history as having no aspects of their cultures that were worth preserving or “redeeming,” including their musical art forms.

Joshua 6-8

God ordained that the Israelites were to conquer the Canaanites (cf. for example, Josh. 3:10) and place whole cities and everything in them under a ban (cf. Josh. 6:17-18). Although God did graciously preserve and redeem Rahab the harlot and all who were with her in her house (Josh. 6:17) from His destruction of Jericho, everyone else was utterly destroyed (Josh. 6:21).

We have no indication in this passage or anywhere else in Scripture that God preserved Rahab and her household because He desired to preserve or redeem some supposedly inherently worthy cultural aspects of the culture of Jericho. We furthermore have no basis to hold that Rahab and her household were proficient at all the musical art forms of Jericho and served as a means of preserving them.

Rather, God’s judgment of Jericho was a judgment of all aspects of it, including its musical art forms. What transpired next in Ai provides a striking implicit confirmation of this interpretation.

When the Israelites attempted to conquer Ai, they were soundly defeated (Josh. 7:4-5) because Achan, one of them, had violated the ban and sinned by taking some things that God had forbidden (Josh. 7:11-13; 20-21). Among the forbidden items that he coveted was “a goodly Babylonish garment” (Josh. 7:21).

God does not provide any explanation for why this beautiful garment had to be destroyed. Even though this garment was apparently in at least some respects a valuable work of human artistic ability, God did not want it to be preserved or “redeemed.”

At God’s direction, the Israelites rendered a fierce judgment on Achan, his household, the garment, and everything that belonged to him (Josh. 7:24-26). They then proceeded to annihilate all the people of Ai (Josh. 8:24-29), showing that God did not preserve any of its cultural art forms.

God’s catastrophic and comprehensive judgment on Jericho, Ai, and many other Canaanite cities and peoples (cf. Josh. 10:29-43) shows that these cultures did not have any cultural art forms that God wanted preserved or “redeemed.”

Is “Cultural Racism” Responsible for Much Christian Opposition to “Holy Hip-Hop”?

Scripture provides abundant evidence for believers to know that it is wrong to hold that all cultures have art forms that are worth preserving or “redeeming.” Christians who are well taught in Scripture and whose thinking is steeped in what Scripture teaches therefore have strong justification for holding that it is legitimate to believe that certain musical art forms of certain cultures are not worth preserving or “redeeming.”[5]

Furthermore, unless a believer has the ability to know infallibly what is in the heart of those believers who oppose “holy hip-hop,” it is wrong and unhelpful for him to charge them with “cultural racism” because they reject this particular musical expression of some human cultures. Injecting racism into the debate about musical styles is illegitimate and dishonoring to people who have suffered painfully because of genuine racism.

 

[1] Available for viewing here.

[2] http://www.mikedcosper.com/home/creation-culture-redemption-and-hip-hop-a-response-the-ncfic-panel; http://www.baptisttwentyone.com/2013/11/death-rattle-or-life-preserver-an-appeal-to-the-ncfic-panelists/; http://brenthobbs.com/index_files/Christian_Rap.php

[3] Lot’s wife perished soon thereafter because she looked back toward Sodom (Gen. 19:26).

[4] At Lot’s request, the Lord also spared a small nearby town called Zoar from the destruction that He had purposed to bring at this time (Gen. 19:17-23). Although He graciously spared this town, we know from the judgment that he had planned to bring on this town at this time (Gen. 19:17, 19, 21) that His assessment of its wickedness was no different from that of Sodom and Gomorrah.

[5] For another helpful article explaining why it is legitimate to reject “Christian rap,” see On Reformed Rap.

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Theology
 permalink

Are All Musical Styles Inherently Moral?

November 21, 2013

Some believers hold that all musical styles are inherently moral. I have been investigating for many months now all that I can find in Scripture that might pertain to this position.

Meditating on various passages about music early in human history led me recently to examine Genesis 6:5, a verse that I had never previously considered for its relevance to the issues of our day concerning music. In particular, does this key statement about all humanity support the view that all musical styles are inherently moral?

Musical Development before the Time of Noah

Genesis 4 provides the earliest information in Scripture about human music. Jubal, the eighth in the ungodly line of Cain (Adam, Cain, Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methusahel, Lamech, Jubal [Gen. 4:17-21]), “was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ” (Gen. 4:21).

This text reveals that Jubal and others played musical instruments, but it does not mention that they sang as well when they played. Although it is likely that these people were also singing at least some of the time when they played their instruments, lack of any Scriptural mention about human singing at this time or at any time prior to it requires that we focus on the nature of their playing the instruments that they possessed.

In order for any musical instrument to be played intelligibly, the player must produce a distinction of tones with the instrument (1 Cor. 14:7). How he chooses to make those distinctions is guided by his thought processes.

Regardless of whatever style or styles of music Jubal and those who followed him devised for playing the harp and the organ, we can be certain that those styles were the products of human mental activity. As such, they would necessarily reflect what was in their hearts.

Extensive Musical Development by the Time of Noah

Genesis 4:21 is the only explicit information in Scripture that we have about human music prior to time of Noah. As we saw, it teaches us that men in the ungodly line of Cain were playing musical instruments in the eighth generation from Adam.

Genesis 5 reveals that Noah was the tenth in the godly line of Seth (Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah [Gen. 5:3-29]). Given that Noah was two generations later in his line than Jubal was in his line, we can be certain that human musical ability in playing those instruments had developed extensively from the time of Jubal to the time of Noah.

Can we know anything more about that development? Because Scripture does not give us any explicit revelation about human music in the time of Noah, some would say that we are unable to know anything more about that development. A close examination of Genesis 6 in comparison with Genesis 4-5, however, proves otherwise.

Profound Musical Degeneracy by the Time of Noah

Genesis 6 does not provide any explicit information about music. It does provide, however, key implicit information that has profound relevance for our understanding of music by the time of Noah.

From when Jubal originated playing the harp and the organ to the time of Noah, human beings had degenerated so profoundly that God assessed them to be only continually evil in every intent of their thoughts:

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Does this statement include the musical imaginations of the thoughts of their hearts? As discussed above, human production of music necessarily reflects the thinking of those who produce the music. For this reason, this statement must also pertain to their musical imaginations.

Moreover, because God had already explicitly noted earlier in Genesis the musical activities of ungodly men who lived long before this time, we know that God wants the reader of Genesis to have in mind that humans had been playing music for quite some time by the time of Noah.

Based on both of these considerations, we have no basis to think legitimately that Genesis 6:5 does not also apply to human musical endeavors at the time of Noah. We must understand rather that every imagination of the thoughts of human hearts in Noah’s time concerning music was also only evil continually.

Were There Profoundly Degenerate Musical Styles at the Time of Noah?

When Jubal became the father of all that play the harp and the organ, he and the others who learned to play those instruments obviously had to use their mental abilities to use those instruments to produce the sounds that they wanted to create. By necessity, whatever music they did play had to be of one or more styles because musical styles are nothing more than “distinctive man-made musical patterns of sounds that the player uses his mental processes to create for whatever purpose or purposes he desires to use those sounds” (my definition).

Because playing the harp and the organ originated in the ungodly line of Cain, we might infer that the styles that they played on those instruments were also ungodly (in keeping with their character). Although this inference may be valid, we do not have enough information to prove its validity rigorously.

By the time of Noah, however, much time had elapsed and mankind became increasingly evil. In fact, all humanity had profoundly degenerated to such an extent that God infallibly declared that every intent of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.

Because musical styles necessarily reflect the thought processes of those who originate or use those styles, we have no basis for saying that there were not musical styles of corrupt humanity at this time that matched the corruption of their hearts. On the contrary, man’s profound degeneracy at this time guarantees that there were profoundly degenerate musical styles at the time of Noah.

Discussion

From what we have learned through studying Genesis 4-6, we conclude that Scripture does not support holding that all musical styles are inherently moral because immoral musical styles certainly existed at the time of Noah. People may nevertheless raise various objections to this conclusion and the reasoning from Scripture employed to arrive at it.

Some may say that the musical degeneracy of the people in Noah’s time was in the words that they sang but not in their styles of playing the instruments. This is an invalid objection for at least two reasons.

As discussed above, Scripture provides no explicit evidence that these people were also singing when they played. To argue that their degeneracy was in what they sang, therefore, has no basis in Scripture.

Furthermore, regardless of whether they were singing or not, human production of instrumental music requires the use of mental processes to play the instruments, and what people play reflects their thinking. Because mankind was utterly corrupt in its thinking at this time, their musical styles were also certainly corrupt.

Another objection that some may offer to this conclusion is that “common grace” from God “insulated” their musical styles from being corrupt. Genesis 6:5 pointedly refutes this objection by saying explicitly that every intent of their thoughts was evil. We would need explicit biblical revelation or indication to hold legitimately, therefore, that “common grace” somehow insured that their musical styles were an exception to the force of this revelation.

The successive revelation further implies that this objection is invalid. Moses makes clear that Noah and seven members of his family were the only human beings to receive saving grace from God so that they were not destroyed. By the grace of God, Noah alone was found righteous in the sight of God at this time.

Because the rest of humanity did not receive such grace from God, we can be certain that their musical styles were not insulated somehow from the pervasive corruption of their intents concerning all other areas of their lives. “Common grace” did not prevent their musical styles from being degenerate.

Conclusion

Sound biblical reasoning applied to Genesis 4-6 teaches us that there were evil musical styles at the time of Noah because their musical styles necessarily reflected the pervasive corruption of all their thinking. We, therefore, know that the position that all musical styles are inherently moral is incorrect.

In light of this biblical evidence (as well as other biblical data), Christians who wish to continue holding the opposing view have the burden of proof of showing from Scripture that their position is nonetheless valid in spite of what Genesis 4-6 reveals about human music.

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

How the Golden Calf Passages Illumine the CCM Debate: Part I

November 9, 2013

Five of the six Golden Calf passages record gold, an inherently good substance created by God, being sinfully fashioned into an idol that was made in the likeness of a calf, an inherently good animal created by God (Exod. 32:4; Deut. 9:21; Neh. 9:18; Ps. 106:19; Acts 7:41). A careful consideration of both what Aaron and the people sinfully did on this occasion and the aftermath of their sinful actions illumines the debate about CCM.

Making a Golden Calf Was Not Inherently Wrong

Created by God, the gold that Aaron used to make the calf was a good substance in and of itself (cf. Gen. 2:12). Because God had also created calves, they were also good in and of themselves (cf. Gen. 1:24-25).

For an Israelite in Aaron’s day to make a golden calf, therefore, would not have been inherently an immoral action. This interpretation is confirmed by noting that God righteously commanded the Israelites later to make a bronze serpent (Num. 21:8-9), which was a human artistic creation (“Moses made a serpent of brass” [Num. 21:9]; italics added) patterned after something that God Himself had created.

Why Making the Golden Calf Was Wrong on This Occasion

Why then was it wrong for Aaron and the people to make the golden calf that they made on this occasion? A closer look at the biblical data points to several considerations.

How All the People Knew that Making an Idol Was Wrong

The Golden Calf passages reveal three ways that all the people knew that making the golden calf on this occasion was wrong. Taking into account each of these reasons is vital for a right understanding of their sinfulness on this occasion.

First, through natural revelation, all the people who were in Egypt at the time of the Exodus knew that making and worshiping idols was wrong (Rom. 1:18-23). In spite of their knowing with certainty that idolatry was wrong, the Egyptians at the time of the Exodus were an idolatrous people with many gods (cf. “gods” [Exod. 12:12]).

Second, in His plagues on Egypt, God judged all of Egypt’s gods (Exod. 12:12). All the people whom God brought out from Egypt further learned through these judgments that the idols of Egypt were sinful objects.

Third, God later warned the people whom He brought out of Egypt that they were not to make any graven images in the likeness of anything that was in the earth (Exod. 20:4) for the purpose of worshiping and serving them (Exod. 20:5). This revelation further instructed them that making and worshiping idols such as the ones that the Egyptians had made and worshiped was sinful.

For the first two reasons explained above, however, it is important to keep in mind that these people already knew conclusively that the idols that the Egyptians had made were sinful before they received this special revelation. They, therefore, would not have needed this revelation from God to know that making the golden calf was wrong.

How Aaron and the People Sinned Greatly by Making the Golden Calf

When Moses was absent from the people for an extended time, the people refused to obey him, repudiated him, and turned back in their hearts to Egypt (Acts 7:39). In rebellion against God and Moses, they demanded that Aaron would make for them “gods” (Acts 7:40; cf. “God” [Neh. 9:18]) to go before them.

Using the gold that the people provided him, Aaron and the people worked together to make the golden calf (Exod. 32:2-4; Acts 7:40). He brought a very great sin upon them through his role in this incident (Exod. 32:21).

The people sinned by making the calf in spite of all the ways that they knew that doing so was wrong, and they sinned further by proclaiming to Israel that these were her “gods” that brought her out of Egypt (Acts 7:40; Exod. 32:4; but cf. “God” [Neh. 9:18]). They did so in spite of their having seen God’s supernatural judgment of all the gods of Egypt (cf. Exod. 12:12) and knowing with certainty that He was the One who had brought them out of Egypt (cf. Exod. 14:31-15:21).

A Closer Look at Aaron’s Great Sinfulness in Making the Golden Calf

When Aaron fashioned the gold into a calf, what he did was very sinful (cf. “so great a sin” [Exod. 32:21]) for multiple reasons. First, it was sinful because it was done in disobedience to God’s command.

Second, it was very sinful because it was done to satisfy the demands of people whom God had redeemed out of Egypt who now in their hearts had sinfully gone back to Egypt. As one of God’s leaders, he should have sternly resisted their demands instead of giving them what they wanted.

Third, because Aaron had lived for many years among the Egyptians, he knew what their idolatrous worship was like and what the gods that they had worshiped looked like. He thus knew what would be an acceptable idol for people who had come out of Egypt.

His making the calf was thus also very sinful because he used his God-given creative powers to form a forbidden object that was patterned after what he knew was used by evil people for evil purposes. God’s profound anger with Aaron on this occasion (Deut. 9:20) undoubtedly stemmed in part from the sinfulness of his fashioning gold into a calf that he knew would be acceptable to them as an idol because it was similar to what they as wicked people had used previously in their evil worship.

Conclusion

Although they used an inherently good substance (gold) to create something in the likeness of a good animal that God had created, Aaron and those who made the golden calf sinned greatly against God by making the gold into an idol. Their sin also included fashioning the gold into an idol that was similar to the idols used by wicked people in their sinful practices.

In making the golden calf, Aaron and the people sinned profoundly in spite of their knowing in multiple ways that doing so was morally wrong. As we will see in future articles, this analysis of the Golden Calf incident has profound relevance for the CCM debate because similar considerations are vital for determining whether CCM use in corporate worship is acceptable to God.

 

For more on the Golden Calf incident, see the five preceding articles in this series under point 11 here.

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Music, Theology
 permalink

Beware Dangerously Flawed Reasoning Used to Justify Using Contemporary Worship to Evangelize People

November 2, 2013

Many justify using certain contemporary worship practices by arguing that they enhance the Church’s effectiveness in evangelizing people. Ezekiel 33 reveals why such reasoning is dangerously flawed.

The Lord’s Exposé of Dangerously Flawed Worship

Addressing Ezekiel as “son of man,” the Lord revealed to him the true state of many who were flocking to hear his ministry of the Word:

Eze 33:30 Also, thou son of man, the children of thy people still are talking against thee by the walls and in the doors of the houses, and speak one to another, every one to his brother, saying, Come, I pray you, and hear what is the word that cometh forth from the LORD. 

31 And they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they shew much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness. 

Even as these people were exhorting one another to come and hear the word of God through Ezekiel, their hearts were horrifically iniquitous. They were not coming to worship the Lord with a true heart for hearing from Him and doing what He says; instead, they loved enjoying what was to them a sensuous experience of hearing the faithful ministry of a true man of God:

Eze 33:32 And, lo, thou art unto them as a very lovelya song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument: for they hear thy words, but they do them not.

aHol6047 Ez 3332: sensual desire (condemned) Ez 2311 3332. † (pg 264) 

This divine revelation shows that their worship was seriously flawed, and the Lord warned Ezekiel that it was dangerously so:

Eze 33:33 And when this cometh to pass, (lo, it will come,) then shall they know that a prophet hath been among them.

When God’s judgment would come upon them for their hearing but not doing what He says, they would know the truthfulness of the message and the messenger that they had disregarded because their hearts were wrongly oriented toward enjoying the titillating experience of hearing him preach the word of God to them.

How Much Contemporary Worship Is Similarly Dangerously Flawed

The Lord’s exposé of their dangerously flawed worship explicitly likened what Ezekiel was to them to their hearing a skilled instrumentalist with a beautiful voice who sings a very lovely but sensual song to them (Ezek. 33:32). In both cases, they fail to profit from the verbal message delivered to them because of the sensual orientation of their hearts.

This divine comparison shows that God is very well aware of the immense power that sensual music can have to influence people in ways that do not enhance the persuasiveness of the message that is communicated verbally to them as part of that music. Several commentators concur with this interpretation:

The news of Jerusalem’s fall appears to have given Ezekiel’s message a certain popularity and topicality. He is now the subject of conversation in the cities and the doorways (33:30). To use a contemporary analogy, he is the toast of the talk shows. But the interest is superficial: The people listen to his words but do not put them into practice, regarding them as an interesting phenomenon rather than a life-changing reality. His fame is like that of a pop star, whose declarations on spiritual matters may arouse curiosity but are scarcely accorded authoritative status. People may also have been humming along to his tune, but they are paying no attention to the true meaning of the lyrics.

Time, however, will prove the power of the word of the Lord through Ezekiel: “When all this comes true—and it surely will—then they will know that a prophet has been among them” (33:33). In that day, just as all will know experientially the power of the Lord, so they will also be forced to recognize the authenticity of the Lord’s prophet.” —Iain M. Duguid, NIVAC: Ezekiel, 385-86.

“Your fellow nationals, human one, who are talking about you in the alleys and doorways, invite each other to come and hear what message Yahweh has sent. They come to you in crowds and sit down in front of you. They listen to your messages without acting on them. To them you are just like a fine vocalist, some professional musician who sings erotic songs. They listen to your messages without acting on them. When it finally happens—and happen it will—then they will realize that they have had a prophet among them.”—Leslie C. Allen, Translation of Ezekiel 33:30-33 in WBC: Ezekiel 20-48, Vol. 29, 149.

Ezekiel, long regarded with suspicion and distaste for his defeatism and scolding (cf. 2:6; 3:9), has been vindicated as a true prophet. In spirit he now seems to stand shoulder to shoulder with his compatriots in exile. Ezekiel’s popularity knows no bounds, as the exiles crowd into his home (cf. 8:1; 14:1; 20:1) to hear what this sensational prophet will say next. Unfortunately, it was the popularity of an entertainer, a pop star, that Ezekiel enjoyed, and he was being taken no more seriously than before. His hearers functioned as a concert audience rather than a congregation.

The extended simile of the singer refers . . . to the fact that his words were so welcome that they were music in the ears of those who thronged to hear them. —Allen, 153-154.

At best Ezekiel is like a singer of ‘a sensual song’ (literally, ‘song of loves’), gifted with a pleasant voice and with the ability to handle an instrument ‘well‘. Nowadays, pop singers tend to celebrate one theme only, and normally in a debased manner. It seems that his hearers estimated Ezekiel in this fashion, switching off when he has hard things to say and treating him as no more than entertainment. When the performance was over, and when their ears had been tickled pleasurably, they would disperse and return to normal business. The picture is vivid, and we can readily understand it: although music and lyrics are core entertainment for the masses, they are never taken seriously, the top tune and its singer being soon forgotten because they are only a temporary diversion. Ezekiel was a passing voice that men of sense would not allow to affect their lives (33:32).

How embarrassing for the prophet! Yet he is assured by Yahweh that his warnings cannot be in vain, for which reason Ezekiel must persist in his ministry. One day ‘it’ will come, and then men will appreciate fully that he was a prophet (33:33; cf. 2:5).” —Peter Naylor, EP Study Commentary, Ezekiel, 515.

The Israelites in exile and the remnant in Palestine had looked on Ezekiel’s ministry in mockery. They would gossip that they should go and hear God’s word (v.30). Yet when they came to Ezekiel, or heard his message, they would listen; but they would not act in accord with his warnings (v.31). They orally expressed devotion, but their hearts were greedy for material gain. They were “playing games” with God. To them Ezekiel was no more than a good entertainer. He was amusing to listen to and to watch, with all his symbolic acts and prophecies. But just as an entertainer demands no response, so they did not sense a need to respond to Ezekiel’s messages (v.32; cf. 2 Tim. 4:3). However, as Ezekiel’s prophecies became reality—and such had already begun in the Fall of Jerusalem—then Israel would realize that a true prophet had been among them (v.33). Oh the importance of listening to men of God and acting on God’s word that they proclaim! —Ralph H. Alexander, EBC, Ezekiel, 6:910-11

Choosing to evangelize people in our day with the use of music that has a widespread popular sensuous and sensual appeal puts those people at great risk of experiencing the same tragic dynamic that Ezekiel’s hearers experienced. When people are focused on their love of a popular musical style used to communicate God’s truth, their hearts will be distracted from attending properly to that truth.

Popular Musical Styles Are Not Proper Vehicles for God’s Truth

Contrary to what many believe today, using sensual musical styles that are very popular (such as the styles used in “rock-influenced” CCM) as vehicles for God’s truth hinders lost people from receiving His truth properly. Although God can and at times does graciously choose to work in some hearts in spite of the negative effects experienced by the hearers of such music, God’s people should learn from Ezekiel 33:30-33 that it is wrong for us to put such obstacles in their way.

Let us beware dangerously flawed reasoning used to justify using contemporary worship to evangelize people!

For more help with issues concerning CCM, please see the many resources that I have compiled: Resources That Provide Answers to Key Issues Concerning CCM

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Evangelism, Exposition, Music
 permalink

In Appreciation of Electronic Bible Study Tools

October 26, 2013

This morning, I began researching all that Scripture teaches about evil spirits. As I worked on generating a list of every verse pertaining to this subject, I was struck anew by just how invaluable electronic Bible study has been for me over the years.

Previous Use of Electronic Bible Study Tools

I have used electronic Bible study tools over the years to study at great length what the Bible teaches about numerous subjects, such as health, evangelism, head coverings, judgment, prayer, the Holy Spirit, eschatology, and music. Without these tools, I would not have been able to study these subjects to the extent that I have and certainly would never have been able to study in-depth so many diverse subjects in the same amount of time.

I have also used these tools to do a vast amount of original language study of various subjects. In fact, my dissertation work would have been impossible to do without these tools because it involved very complex study of biblical Hebrew and Greek that I would not have been able to do just by using ordinary original language tools.

Current Research about the Biblical Teaching about Evil Spirits

This morning, I searched for every occurrence of words that start with the string of letters devil (to do this search in BibleWorks7 [BW7], you would search on devil*). Using the Verse List Manager, I then created a verse list from that search and examined all the verses.

I did these additional searches and made verse lists for each one:

evil spirit*; familiar; tempter; Satan; serpent*; ‘prince of; unclean spirit*; dragon*; principal*

I briefly examined all the verses that these searches produced and generated a master list of 232 verses from them. Scanning through this list makes clear that Scripture has much to say about this important subject and its profound ramifications for every believer.

The Blessing of These Invaluable Tools

In a matter of minutes, I was able to study a subject with a breadth that would have taken many hours to do without the use of BW7. I plan to study these verses much more in the weeks to come and hope to write several articles based on that research, especially in connection with my ongoing study of the role of fallen spirits in the Golden Calf incident.

I praise and thank God for blessing us with invaluable electronic Bible study tools such as BW7 and heartily recommend their use!

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Bible reading, Biblical Languages, CCM
 permalink

Is Scripture Silent about Musical Styles That Are Inherently Unacceptable to God?

June 10, 2013

Many believers today hold that Scripture does not have any teaching about musical styles that are inherently unacceptable to God. This post treats several passages to assess the validity of this common viewpoint.

The Singing of Fools

Solomon declares, “It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools [Heb. kesil]” (Eccl. 7:5). Many will argue that he does not say that it is wrong to hear the song of fools; it is just better to hear the rebuke of the wise. In addition, they will also argue that “the song of fools” refers to the foolishness of the people doing the singing and the content of what they sing, but it does not say anything about the style with which they sing.

We know from other Scripture that these fools [Heb. kesil] reject the truth that God hears and sees (Ps. 94:8-9). Thus, they sing without taking any heed to divine accountability for what and how they sing.

These fools hate knowledge (Prov. 1:22) and reject the reproof of God and His offer to pour out His Spirit upon them (Prov. 1:23). What they sing, therefore, certainly is not the product of the Spirit’s filling.

Doing mischief is like a sport to them (Prov. 10:23) and their hearts proclaim folly (Prov. 12:23). To depart from evil is an abomination to them (Prov. 13:19).

These fools rage and are confident in their evil ways (Prov. 14:16). The hearts of these fools are in “the house of mirth” (Eccl. 7:4), signifying that they are eager seekers of pleasure. We can be certain that such fools would pursue and employ perverse ways of singing and even seek to devise conspicuously evil music.

Based on the teaching of Scripture about fools, we can be certain that “the song of fools” is something that the Spirit would never produce in people whom He fills (Eph. 5:18-19). Any singing, therefore, that mimics or tries to adapt “the song of fools” somehow for Christian worship would clearly be unacceptable to God.

The Singing of Drunkards 

David testifies that he was “the song of the drunkards” (Ps. 69:12). As with Ecclesiastes 7:5, some people will argue that this statement only speaks about those who did the singing and the unacceptable content of what they sang and not about the style of their singing.

Because being drunk, however, entails not having proper mental awareness and a lack of proper control of oneself, this statement does not just refer to the unacceptability of the people who sang and what they sang. Their style of singing was also unacceptable because it was produced by people whose minds could not properly control their bodies to sing acceptably.

Amos 6:4-8 records the musical improprieties of people who were in Zion who drank wine abundantly. Correlating Psalm 69:12 with Amos 6:4-8 points to the ungodliness of both what these drunkards (Ps. 69:12) sing and how they sing it. (For more on the teaching of Amos 6 about music, see The Relevance of Amos 6 for the Music Debates of Our Day.)

Obviously, “the song of the drunkards” was not the product of Spirit-filling (Eph. 5:18-19). Mimicking or adapting their style to Christian worship certainly would be unacceptable to God.

The Singing of a Harlot 

Isaiah prophesied that Tyre would “sing as an harlot” (Is. 23:15). He provides further information about such singing by saying, “Take an harp, go about the city, thou harlot that hast been forgotten; make sweet melody, sing many songs, that thou mayest be remembered” (Is. 23:16).

A harlot, by biblical definition, engaged in immoral behavior. In keeping with the mercenary goal of her activities, she used every means possible to enhance her sensuality and seductive appeal to maximize her earnings (cf. Luke 15:13, 30).

To “sing as an harlot,” therefore, cannot be limited only to the identity of the woman and the sensuality of the lyrics (cf. Prov. 6:24; 7:21) that she sings. It necessarily entails as well the maximized sensuality of her dress (Prov. 7:10; Jer. 4:30; Ezek. 16:16) and her makeup/ jewelry/hairstyle/ facial expressions (Prov. 6:25; 7:13; Jer. 4:30; Ezek. 16:39; 23:40; cf. Is. 3:16-26).

Moreover, her bodily movements (cf. the unstated but clear sensuality of the dancing of Herodias’ daughter [Matt. 14:6-7]) and vocal techniques were specifically designed to maximize her sexual appeal (for an example of the sensual use of vocal techniques, listen to this audio of a woman who sings Happy Birthday sensually).

It also involved her playing a musical instrument (“take a harp”) and having an extensive repertoire (“sing many songs”). She was one who in fact was skilled “to make sweet melody.”

Thus, her singing was skillful and beautiful to hear, but it was also sensual to the core. Such music patently could never be the product of the Spirit’s filling a believer.

From this analysis of biblical teaching about harlots, we certainly can conclude that to “sing as an harlot” is a style that is unacceptable to God because of its sensuality. Any Christian music, whether traditional or CCM, that has even the slightest similarity to the music produced by those who “sing as an harlot” is unacceptable to God.

Conclusion 

Contrary to much popular thinking among believers today, Scripture is not silent about musical styles that are unacceptable to God. The Spirit-filled music that God demands from believers who seek to worship Him corporately does not have any likeness to the songs of fools, drunkards, or harlots.

Those who have created and popularized worldly styles of music such as rock ‘n’ roll display numerous characteristics of the fools whose song Scripture refers to (Eccl. 7:5). Typically, the producers of these worldly styles are also given to drunkenness, and immorality abounds among them.

Christian churches should not imitate the musical styles that any such fools, drunkards, and harlots employ when they sing in ways that manifest the flesh at work in man (Gal. 5:19-21). Filled with the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:18), those who have allowed the word of Christ to dwell in them richly (Col. 3:16), including the passages about music that were treated above, will sing in a style that is distinct from these reprobates and is acceptable to God (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16).

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Music, Theology
 permalink

On Supernatural Evil Beings and the CCM Debate

May 27, 2013

Based on what Scripture teaches about the deceitfulness of Satan and his blinding the minds of all unbelievers (2 Cor. 4:4; 11:14; Rev. 12:9), it is understandable to me that an unbeliever would mock any suggestion that supernatural evil beings have had important influence in the origins of certain musical styles. For a likely example of such unbelieving mocking, note the response by one of the judges at the end of this brief video excerpt from an episode of American Idol: “and demons, [laugh, laugh, laugh, laugh].”

It is puzzling to me, however, when someone who is presumably a believer appears to hold a similar perspective. For example, in a recent Christianity Today article, Dr. Russell Moore, who is the Dean of the School of Theology at Southern Baptist Seminary,  writes, “Myers’ critique of Christian hip-hop wasn’t a fundamentalist scold, wary of the Devil’s music” (Dr. Russell Moore, W.W. Jay-Z?, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/may/ww-jay-z.html?paging=off; accessed 5/27/13; bold added). Because he does not say anything further about the subject in his article, we can only infer that Dr. Moore apparently thinks that fundamentalists are erroneously “wary” of what they mistakenly regard as “the Devil’s music.”

How is it possible for a learned believer (presumably) to hold such a view of the Devil’s influence on human music? Although I have some ideas about why he might hold such a view, I’d be interested to hear what others think about this subject.

For an introductory article that explains my view about this subject, see my post Fallen Spirits and Their Influences on Human Music—Part I

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Music, Theology
 permalink